RaoulD

I don't think going for Caicedo was a mistake or that we should have tried earlier. Clearly we had assumed that given Chelsea's interest, there was no encouragement from his agents that he would be open to a move to us. The money being sought for him would also have been an issue were it not for the £50M+ we got for Fab and Hendo. His agents clearly were seeking to force Chelsea to pay Brighton's asking price by getting us on board. They may not have factored in a bid from us that was acceptable to Brighton as part of this process but if the player really wants to play for Chelsea then we cannot be faulted for trying to sign him. Lavia is a completely different proposition and I am surprised that he is now being seen as the answer to our DM issue. He may turn out to be the world's best but he is still very raw and whilst the potential is there, paying upwards of £50M for him will not solve the problem caused by Fab's departure. Caicedo at least proved himself over the course of a season but I cannot believe that there are no alternatives available, especially as we clearly have the budget to bring in some quality. We may still sign Lavia as I suspect that if Chelsea have signed Caicedo, his opportunities there are likely to be limited and he may be reluctant to sit on the bench for up to 8 years!

1967 and it was because the song was played at half time after Gary Sprake had thrown the ball into his own net.

Looks that way but if Chelsea have FFP issues which given that they have spent over £500M in the previous two windows and their net spend in this window will be wiped out if they buy Lavia let alone pay £115M for Caicedo there may be problems in making the bid which they are trying to resolve by off loading some of their squad.

Possibly more than one given the values placed on them by their clubs/release clauses.

Mbappe was not seen that way in 2017 largely due to his age. He really exploded on the scene the following year but I accept he was still a huge talent when he was at Monaco and the amount of money PSG paid blew us out of the water. The Premier League sold it soul to the devil when Chelsea were allowed to effectively buy the league in 2004-5 by buying up the best 24 players available. Since then what has happened is just a refuelling of the fire but because it makes serious money, the suits and moneymen don't give a damn about the integrity of the game or the league.

I know and in a funny way I am not disappointed. If he wants to play for that shower then good luck to him and I hope we use the money better elsewhere. I just don't trust FSG to now come out with the we tried line to justify a lack of spending now.

Lavia has huge potential rather like Mbappe in 2017 when we were looking to get him from Monaco. Sometimes it is worth taking a chance if you feel that a player has such potential and we have done pretty well in recent years ourselves with the likes of Coutinho, Suarez and Torres (for example) all being sold on for more than we paid. I don't think Lavia is ready to become our defensive lynchpin but he has the potential to do so. Caicedo was ready and given he played with Mac Allister last season would probably slot into our new midfield immediately. I agree Fab had a bad last season but he was clearly still the main DM when the window opened and that was a cause for concern in itself. Unlike the departure of Souness at his peak in 1984, I feared we had seen the best of Fab and therefore his departure (for a substantial fee) did not cause alarm. He does need to be replaced and whilst I would be more than happy with a committed Caicedo, I cannot help but think that we can do better and hope that this proves to be the case (assuming that the unlikely scenario of Caicedo now does not occur).

Until Brighton confirm that they have accepted Chelsea's bid and given permission for them to speak to the player, there is no change in the position. We are the only club that can discuss terms with the player but of course agents circumvent this by making the approach themselves. It really depends on whether the 115 million is better from Brighton's perspective compared with our accepted offer. If Brighton reject Chelsea's bid because they regard our offer as better, we are still in the driving seat. However, if the player really wants a move to Chelsea, I cannot see the logic in paying this amount for a player who is not committed to LFC and I suspect that this is where we are at the moment and are therefore not forcing the issue.

Because the prohibition is a UEFA rule and the FA have not outlawed it in their rules. Chelsea not being in UEFA competitions this year gives them time to get the accounts to comply with UEFA rules for next season if they qualify. It also allows them to extract large fees for players who still have years on their contract but there is also the risk that they are stuck with a player eating up resources that limits their activity in the future.

Negotiations over the fee will be FSG's role in the transfer anyway so it is almost certainly FSG that are unwilling to pay the fee asked by Southampton but the reason for it may be more complicated than a straight linear comparison between FSG's and the recruitment teams respective views on the value of the player. You have to factor in other variables such as the overall cost both in terms of transfer fees but also salaries in order to remain compliant with the Premier League FFP and accountability rules. It may be that Lavia is now part of a bigger picture where other players are also being factored into the equation. At the start of the window we had to replace 3 midfielders due to Milner, Ox and Keita leaving and obviously Mac Allister and Dom were brought in for that purpose. Lavia would probably have been done as well but for the fact that we then lost both Fab and Hendo. If we had signed Lavia, I suspect Klopp will have wanted to ease him into the side in the same way he introduced Robbo. I suspect Klopp would still want to do this if we did sign him because he is relatively inexperienced and asking him to slot into an entirely new midfield as the defensive lynchpin is probably asking too much. I would not be surprised if Klopp decides to play Trent in the position against Chelsea and either slots Gomez in at right back or plays 3 at the back (with Trent in his hybrid role to cover the flank) with Curtis as the third midfielder.

Trent's biggest problem is positioning rather than his ability to defend. He often commits forward to tackle the player in possession too early allowing the ball to be played into the space he has vacated. Playing him as a more central Defensive Midfielder might be an improvemente since the space left when he seeks to challenge for the ball would be covered by our centre backs rather than pulling them out of position to cover the flanks when Trent is caught too far upfield. We would however need another right back to cover the right flank or we change the formation to play three at the back with Konate on the right, Virgil in the Centre and Robbo on the left with Trent as the defensive shield/playmaker in front of them.

I agree that by accepting the offers without having something lined up potentially leaves us vulnerable if we do not recruit to fill the void left by their departures but I think it is somewhat unrealistic to expect us to have kept Hendo and Fab if they wanted to go on the grounds that we needed to find replacements first. I could understand that stance if the offers had come in at a time when we could not recruit replacements but that was not the case and it is why I am waiting to see what happens before lighting the FSG pyre.

Whilst I understand the frustration about the lack of progress on transfers particularly given the last few transfer windows, it is not as simple as a lot on here seem to think. Sometimes a transfer will happen relatively swiftly because the fee offered either meets the selling club's valuation of the player or there is a release clause that effectively forces their hand. In other cases it is a matter of negotiation and this can be a lengthy process where each party tests the resolve of the other. We have lost 5 first-team midfielders (Hendo, Milner, Fab, Ox and Keita) as well as Bobby (who was the key to the forward press that allowed us to play three in midfield). So far we have signed just 2 replacements in MacAlilister and Dom so it is obvious that we need more signings but also that the team is going to have to evolve into a new shape and style of play since we are not replacing like with like. There is also the question of Trent's role and the issues that it creates for the rest of the team. Lavia was probably identified as a potential target before there was any hint that Hendo and Fab whould be leaving and whilst we are clearly still interested in him, he cannot be seen as a replacement for either of them. I think Klopp certainly planned on having Hendo's leadership and experience to call on for the coming season and his decision to leave has thrown a spanner in the works so far as recruitment is concerned. Our reluctance to meet Southampton's valuation for Lavia is probably more to do with the change in what we now require (and the resources we need to spend to get it) rather than trying to beat Southampton down on their valuation. The time to judge is still the end of the window as even if we signed players now, it is highly unlikely that they will start against Chelsea in just over a week's time as that is simply not Klopp's way.

There is no precedent for the sanction if City are found guilty by the FA of breaching its financial rules. A fine is clearly inadequate punishment for a club such as City and as you rightly say anything short of stripping them of all the titles they have won since 2009 and expulsion from the Premier League would leave a dangerous precedent that could undermine the integrity of the rules in question. In my view, if City broke the rules in the manner alleged by the FA, you cannot overturn the advantage they gained from doing so. You simply cannot make any sensible assessment of what would have happened if the rules hadn't been broken. What would City's team have looked like if they had not been able to spend what they did spend on transfers and wages? How would games against them have turned out? How would other games have played out if City were not involved in the title race or competition at that stage? What would have happened if some of the players signed by City in the period had in fact been signed by other clubs?

Its very easy when you can afford to underwrite mistakes and have unlimited resources at your disposal to buy in what you need to develop the team and support structure (whether it be players, support staff or management). The problem for City was that UEFA rules introduced in 2012 did not allow for such unlimited expenditure and the FA Rules required both transparency and fair accounting as to the financial position and profitability of the club. If the FA charges are proven then City have effectively built the current team, structure and enjoyed the success on the field that resulted from enjoyment of an unfair advantage gained by disregarding the very rules that were designed to prevent that advantage, It is hard to admire or even respect what City have achieved whilst other clubs have endeavoured to abide by the rules. City's behaviour to date in relation to both the FA investigation and the disciplinary process has been to attempt to use the legal process to block not only the investigation but also publication of the judgments of the Commercial Court that refused their challenge to the arbitration award that required them to provide documents and information to the FA investigation. The 115 charges that have resulted from the investigation are therefore likely to be based on considerably more information than UEFA had when they sought to investigate and prosecute City at the same time. Consequently, the CAS ruling overturning the findings of the Investigatory and Adjudication Chambers of UEFA is therefore unlikely to provide much assistance to City in facing the FA charges. Winning the Champions League this year was therefore much more important than City fans may have realised, If City are found guilty of the charges, there is no precedent for the sanction that might follow. However, the FA will have no jurisdiction over UEFA competitions and the limitation period will probably prevent UEFA from being able to take action in respect of this years Champions League competition. If City are stripped of their domestic titles, they would still be able to retain the cup that they won at the weekend.

This content is not viewable to guests.

We have had bad starts before but come back to win (I remember 81-82 in particular) and our first 9 games have seen us play 3 against the "Big 6" with injury and suspensions weakening the team. We also have to re-adjust our playing style to accommodate a new strike force and the loss of a key player in Mane. Arsenal have had a good start but were fortunate against us (despite the fact we did not play particularly well) and it is still early days as to whether they can sustain it throughout the season. Chelsea are a work in progress at best and likely to remain inconsistent whilst Tottenham are solid but look to be lacking in the quality needed to sustain a challenge. United are all over the place and like Chelsea too inconsistent to sustain a challenge. We have just proved that City can be beaten and if Haaland is injured anything could happen. It suits us to be outsiders at the moment as it did when we were written off last season.

Most football fans idea of football economics seem to forget that you have to pay your employees wages if you expect them to work for you and that in order to keep your club solvent you have to ensure that your wage bill does not cause you to spend more than you earn. Haaland was never going to be signed because a club was prepared to meet his release clause as is the case with every other football signing. The wages offered are part of the enticement as it is in any other form of employment. Klopp is just saying what everyone who has watched football over the last 30 years knows. The club that can afford to pay wages far higher than any other club (either because of their revenue or because their owners can bankroll their losses) has an advantage over all the rest when it comes to signing and enticing the best players to join them. First it was United, then Chelsea and now City with possibly Newcastle next. Personally, I don't care what fans of other clubs think but I do care about the way football is going in general and that I think is what Klopp is really complaining about.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

This content is not viewable to guests.

No Handel's Zadok the Priest which has some of the same lyrics as the National Anthem in God save the King.

This content is not viewable to guests.